Gateway Pacific Terminal

Gateway Pacific Terminal is a proposed terminal at Cherry Point near Ferndale, Washington, and would have a maximum capacity of about 54 million tons. On February 28, 2011, SSA Marine applied for state and federal permits for the $500 million terminal, triggering formal environmental review. If approved, the terminal would begin construction in early 2013 and operations in 2015.

Permitting
The environmental review process for the Gateway Pacific cargo terminal at Cherry Point began officially on Feb. 28, 2011, when SSA Marine submitted preliminary documents on the $500 million project to Whatcom County, state agencies and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The site, between the BP Cherry Point oil refinery and the Alcoa Intalco Works aluminum smelter, has been zoned industrial for many years, and land use regulations on the site envision eventual construction of the type of pier that SSA is proposing. Bob Watters, an SSA Marine vice president, said he's confident that the study process won't uncover any environmental issues that are too serious or too costly to overcome, but the project won't have certainty until the study phase is complete in about two years.

In a letter to the Whatcom Council of Governments, Bob Ferris, executive director of RE Sources for Sustainable Communities, contended that the terminal's most likely use is for coal exports, and coal trains through the city would mean traffic disruptions, public spending on safety improvements, lost property values, disruption of business activity, and pollution from both coal dust and diesel locomotive exhaust. His letter also notes that Council of Goverments members are likely to face "extreme political pressures" as the process moves ahead.

If the environmental review and permitting process goes through, SSA would then also need to obtain a lease from the Washington Department of Natural Resources, which manages the state's waters, before beginning construction in early 2013 and beginning operations in 2015. At that point, SSA would have a pier capable of handling as many as three large vessels at a time, loading bulk commodities such as coal, potash, calcined petroleum coke and grain for shipment to Asian markets. Watters acknowledged that at full capacity, the terminal could draw as many as nine loaded trains per day through Bellingham, and they would then head back through the city after unloading.

During the week of June 6-10, 2011 SSA Marine filed a permit application the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal. The application read:

"The applications submitted herein will cover the difference in scope between that approved project and our full buildout plan."

The earlier permit was noted in the application was approved by the Whatcom County Council in 1997. At that time, it envisioned a 180-acre development that would handle 8.2 million tons of cargoes per year, including petroleum coke (produced by local refineries) iron ore, sulfur, potash and wood chips. Coal was not mentioned an an export commodity in the earlier permit.

Later in June 2011, Whatcom County officials announced that SSA must apply for a new permit for its proposed Gateway Terminal.

Peabody signs deal for exports to Asia
On March 1, 2011, Seattle-based SSA Marine announced it had entered into an agreement with St. Louis-based Peabody Energy to export up to 24 million metric tons of coal per year through the Gateway Pacific Terminal. According to peabody, the terminal in Whatcom County would serve as the West Coast hub for exporting Peabody's coal from the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana to Asian markets. The project would ramp up potential U.S. coal exports to Asia from Washington state. Another coal export terminal proposed in Longview, the Millennium Bulk Logistics Longview Terminal in southwest Washington, has drawn environmental opposition. That Millennium Bulk Logistics terminal would be a joint venture between Australia-based Ambre Energy and Arch Coal.

Environmental groups have appealed to Washington's Shoreline Hearings Board over a permit awarded for the port by Cowlitz County commissioners.

According to Gateway Pacific Terminal's website the company plans on providing a "highly efficient portal for American producers to export dry bulk commodities such as grain, potash and coal to Asian markets." Additionally, the site contends that the "Gateway project will generate about 4,000 jobs and about $54 million a year in tax revenue for state and local services. Once in full operation, it's estimated that Gateway will provide almost $10 million a year in tax revenue, create about 280 permanent family-wage jobs directly, and nearly 1,400 additional jobs through terminal purchases and employee spending."

In May 2011 Arch Coal announced that it was establishing a new subsidiary, Arch Coal Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd., and named Renato Paladino president. A press release stated that Paladino will be responsible for Asia-Pacific regional business development, marketing and sales of thermal and metallurgical products, and regional supply chain expansion for the company. The new office will be located in Singapore.

Early History
According to the website of SSA Marine, the private cargo handling company pursuing the terminal, SSA entered into a joint venture with Westar Management's Westshore Terminals in 1990 to develop the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point. In 1993, Canadian billionaire Jim Pattison took over management control of Westar, including its Westshore Terminals in British Columbia, and by 1997 had privatized the company.

During a meeting on May 19, 2011 grain producers and shippers gathered at the Silver Reef Hotel and Casino Pavilion to learn about SSA Marine's plans for the Gateway Pacific Terminal project at Cherry Point. SSA was the sponsor the event. During the meeting SSA insisted that the port development would include grain shipment capabilities, which would open up the grain belt to Asian markets. SSA claimed that a demand for U.S. grain will soar in the years ahead and U.S. farmers will need more West Coast port capacity to meet that growing demand.

April 2011: Public Debate on Cherry Point Coal Terminal
On April 27, 2011 a debate on the proposed port terminal at Cherry Point was held at the Bellingham City Club drew a crowed of 350 people. Supporters of the proposed $400 million project at addressed job creation — up to 213 to 280 permanent longshore jobs they stated.

Opponents, an increasing segment of the city, want to talk about the impact of an additional 18 to 20 trains every day, a mile-and-a-half long and very loud and heavy, running through some of the city's most valuable property.

"We have established an industrial area for a reason, to generate high wage jobs that fuel our economy," said Craig Cole, a Bellingham business leader, University of Washington regent and consultant to the terminal's builder SSA Marine.

But Bob Ferris, a project opponent, warned that the terminal would bring mile-and-a-half-long trains through Bellingham -- "30 miles of additional trains a day" -- and do local and global environmental damage.

"Coal is, bar none, the worst fossil fuel on the planet," said Ferris, a Whatcom County newcomer and leader of a group called Resources for Sustainable Communities. Ferris also noted that an increase in train traffic through Bellingham could bring "30 miles of additional trains a day".

May 2011: Bellingham Mayor takes heat from anti-coal community
On May 4, during a public forum on the proposed coal terminal at Cherry Point in Bellingham, Washington, City Mayor Dan Pike drew criticism from anti-coal activists in the community for staying neutral on the controversial plan to ship tons of coal through the town. When asked whether he supported allowing the coal trains in Whatcom County, Pike stated he would not take a stand for or against because it was a complex question that had to do with national policy.

In response, one angry audience member shouted from the back of the room: “You’re a wimp.” More than 200 people packed into the Bellingham High School commons to attend the forum put on by RE Sources for Sustainable Communities, Climate Solutions and the Sierra Club. The majority of those in attendance seemed to be in opposition to the mine.

June 2011: Coal terminal foes dominate Bellingham hearing
On June 1, 2011, more than 300 people turned out for Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike's community meeting to discuss concerns about the environmental effects from the Gateway Pacific Terminal coal and bulk cargo export terminal at Cherry Point.

Most of those who spoke at the meeting stated their determined opposition to the Gateway Pacific project for a wide range of reasons: health effects from coal dust and ship and locomotive emissions; climate change from the burning of exported coal in China; disruption of waterfront redevelopment plans because of excessive train traffic through the city; reduced property values from railroad dirt and noise; and a black eye for Bellingham's image as a green community.

June 2011: Bellingham Mayor opposes Gateway Pacific Terminal project
In a press release in early June 2011 Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike stated that he was coming out in opposition to the Cherry Point port expansion. Mayor Pike wrote:


 * My team and I met recently with representatives of SSA Marine and their main business partners, the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad. I hoped they would bring to the conversation recognition that their proposed project would have multiple downsides for our community. I hoped they would make a commitment to provide meaningful mitigations — or even better– a willingness consider other commodities, and not rely exclusively on coal exports for the terminal’s financial engine.


 * Instead, these proponents brought denial of any potential harms and blatant defiance that they should change their plans in any way. In fact, it has become public knowledge that they have signed a multi-year deal with Montana’s Peabody Coal to ship at least 24 million tons of coal from our sensitive shores as their major focus of business for the foreseeable future.


 * That is not a future that I want to see. By any calculation, the proposed coal-dependent terminal at Cherry Point does not add up.

June 2011: Whatcom County rejects Gateway Pacific cargo permit
In June 2011 it was announced that developers of the Gateway Pacific Terminal must apply for a new shoreline permit if they want to build a facility capable of handling up to 54 million tons of cargo a year, including coal. The decision came from Whatcom County planners and was a setback to SSA Marine which proposed to build the terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. SSA Marine holds a 1997 permit for a smaller facility that could handle up to 8.2 million tons of cargo a year, not including coal. The company argued that the larger coal export facility would require processing the application as a "revision" to the existing permit, and that the revisions would undergo the same level of scrutiny as a new application.

Environmental groups represented by Earthjustice stated that the application as a revision would require less public scrutiny and would mean the project could avoid tough environmental standards because it would be reviewed under 1992 shorelines laws instead of more recent ones. The groups included Sierra Club, Climate Solutions, and ReSources for Sustainable Communities.

Whatcom County sent the letter announcing their decision on June 23, 2011. The letter, from county Planning Supervisor Tyler Schroeder, said a new shorelines permit is required under county law because the new proposal is "beyond the scope and intent of the original approval." County code requires that it meet that standard for a permit revision, he said.

July 2011: Public meeting discusses Cherry Point coal terminal project
On July 7, 2011 more than 300 residents turned out for a forum at Lincoln Theatre in Mount Vernon, Washington to discuss the construction of a $600 million cargo terminal at Cherry Point in Bellingham. The facility would bring an estimated 18 more trains a day carrying coal shipments would cross Skagit and Whatcom counties to the new facility.

The forum was organized by environmental groups from Skagit County and the region, who said allowing the project to go through would cause local traffic problems, create air pollution and contribute to global warming.

Related SourceWatch articles

 * China and coal
 * Coal exports from northwest United States ports
 * Millennium Bulk Logistics Longview Terminal
 * Port of St. Helens
 * Washington (state) and coal
 * Wyoming and coal
 * Powder River Basin
 * U.S. coal exports
 * Coal terminals